Nuclear Jihad

In the year 628, Muhammad, now ruling in Medina, signed the ten-year Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with his long-time enemies, the tribal confederacy of Quraysh, who ruled Mecca. Twenty-two months later, under the pretext that a clan from a tribe allied with the Quraysh had squabbled with a tribe allied to the Muslims, Muhammad broke the treaty and attacked Mecca, conquering it. It is as certain as day follows night, that the Iranian regime will find a pretext to break the deal. Already, on September 3, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene'i made it clear that he would back out of the deal if sanctions were not completely removed at once.

The Iranian regime not only despises democracy; it considers all Western law, including international law, invalid.

The Shi'a consider themselves underdogs, who are willing to sacrifice all to establish the rights of their imams and their successors. That was what the 1979 revolution was all about, and it is what present the Iranian regime still insists on as the justification for its opposition to Western intrusion, democracy, women's rights and all the rest, which are deemed by Iran's leadership as part of a plot to undermine and control the expansion of the Shi'i faith on the global stage. These are not Anglican vicars.

The Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps "have responsibility... for a religious mission, which is Holy War (Jihad) in the path of God and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God's law in the world." — Iran's Constitution, Article "The Religious Army".

A Third World War is already taking place. The Iran deal strengthens the hands of a regime that is the world's terrorist state, a state that furthers jihad in many places because its clerical hierarchy considers itself uniquely empowered to order and promote holy war.

Obama's trust in Khamene'i's presumed fatwa of 2013, forbidding nuclear weapons, rests on the assumption that it even exists. It does not. Even if it did, fatwas are not permanent.

Why, then, is this deal going ahead at all? Why is one of the world's most tyrannical regimes being rewarded for its intransigence, and especially for repeatedly violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

"[Some] analysts," writes the historian and former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, "claimed the president [Barack Obama] regarded Iran as an ascendant and logical power -- unlike the feckless, disunited Arabs and those troublemaking Israelis -- that could assist in resolving other regional conflicts. I first heard this theory at Georgetown back in 2008, in conversation with think tankers and former State Department officials. They also believed Iran's radical Islam was merely an expression of interests and fears that the United States could with sufficient goodwill, meet and allay. ... Iran, according to Obama was a pragmatic player with addressable interest. For Netanyahu, Iran was irrational, messianic, and genocidal – 'worse,' he said, 'than fifty North Koreas.'"[1]

Since the signing of the deal at the UN, hot-tempered criticisms and defences have gone into overdrive in the political, journalistic, and diplomatic spheres. Acres have been written and are still being written about the deal, making it the hottest political potato of recent years. Expert analysts such as Omri Ceren and, more recently, Joel Rosenberg have cut through the deliberate obfuscation to show the extent of the dangers the deal presents to the Middle East, the United States, Israel, and the world.

The deal's supporters insist that it will bring peace and calm to the region, while a host of denigrators -- chief among them Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu -- have exposed the enormous risks it entails. Already, a vast majority of American citizens are opposed to the deal.

Within the U.S. Congress, bipartisan opposition to the deal is high and mounting. Yet, on September 2, President Obama succeeded in winning over a 34th senator, enough that ultimate passage of the deal is a foregone conclusion. That does not, however, mean that the debate will end. In all likelihood, it will grow fiercer as time passes and true consequences become clearer to the public and politicians alike.

Recent revelations that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which oversees nuclear developments worldwide, has agreed that only Iranians will be allowed to inspect the most controversial of Iran's nuclear sites, have raised anxieties about proper monitoring of the deal. The military complex of Parchin, where Iran is suspected of work on nuclear weapons, will be closed to outside inspection, making it certain that, if Iran decides to cheat (something it has done before), it will be able to do so with impunity. Sanctions will not be re-imposed. And, as we shall see, cheating on the deal can be justified by the Iranians who could always refer to the practice of the prophet Muhammad with the Quraysh tribe in Mecca.

Obama, his Secretary of State John Kerry, and the entire US administration are not merely behind the deal, but almost fanatically so. Many argue that Obama is more interested in securing his "legacy" as the world's greatest peacemaker (or war-creator, as the case may well turn out to be), the statesman par excellence who alone could bring the theocratic regime of Iran in from the cold and shower the Middle East with true balance in its troubled affairs.

To bring this about, Obama has had to diminish, if not leave totally open to obliteration, American support for Israel, the single country in the world most clearly exposed to a possible genocide should the Iran's Islamic regime choose to exterminate it, as it has so often threatened to do.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words mellal-e Eslami bayad Esra'il-ra qal' o qam' kard – "the Islamic nations must exterminate Israel" -- have been given renewed vigour now that it is highly likely that Iran, evading serious inspections by the IAEA, will soon possess the weapons to do just that.

Even if the treaty is a done deal, it is time to show yet another massive hole in the administration's strategy. Already, Obama, Kerry and the tightly knit administration have shown themselves remarkably obdurate in turning a blind eye to the many concerns that surround the deal. At the end of the "sunset period," if not sooner, Iran gets to have, legitimately, as many bombs as it likes. Other problems include breakout times; centrifuge production; centrifuge concealment; uranium enrichment by stealth; refusal to allow the IAEA to inspect military sites; the acquisition of intercontinental ballistic missiles -- presumably to be used intercontinentally at guess who. It is no secret that the hardliners in Iran still speak of America as "The Great Satan" and consider it their enemy. That does not even include the implications of lifting sanctions on, and paying billions of dollars to, the world's main sponsor of terrorism.

As Michael Oren has shown, however, the American president presumably thinks he is doing a deal with a logical and pragmatic regime. Barack Obama, an intelligent, well-read man of Muslim origin, knows almost nothing about Islam; that is the greatest flaw in the Iran deal he has fought so hard to inflict on the human race. With access to platoons of experts, to some of the greatest libraries with holdings in Islamic doctrines and history, and with the Mullahs and Iran's public still daily promising to destroy America, Obama apparently still believes Islam is a religion of peace and that a theocratic, terror-supporting, medieval regime should have the power to make nuclear bombs. The obverse is that he might like, perhaps not wittingly, to see America, Israel and the West brought to their knees.

This author has previously exposed one aspect of Iran's serious lack of logic, rationality, or pragmatism -- namely the extent to which apocalyptic thinking, messianic prophecy, and dreams of Islamic transcendence through universal conflict pervade the clerical elite, a high percentage of the masses, and even the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. One might assume that this would be especially true when they are flush with cash and nuclear weapons, and the risk to their own survival is substantially lower.

On August 17, just over a month after the signing of the nuclear deal, Iran's Supreme Leader, 'Ali Khamene'i, addressed a religious conference, where he expressed his undying hatred for the United States. He said, for example:

We must combat the plans of the arrogance [i.e. the West, led by the U.S.] with jihad for the sake of Allah. ... jihad for the sake of God does not only mean military conflict, but also means cultural, economic, and political struggle. The clearest essence of jihad for the sake of God today is to identify the plots of the arrogance in the Islamic region, especially the sensitive and strategic West Asian region. The planning for the struggle against them should include both defense and offense.

The deal has done nothing whatever to stop military threats to Israel, an ally of the United States (though treated with disrespect by America's president). Speaking on 2 September, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp's top commander in Tehran province, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazemayni, stated that, "... they [the US and the Zionists] should know that the Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine."

There is a simple word for this: warmongering.

Why is the U.S. President insisting on a bad deal with a warmongering regime?

When a military force at its strongest fantasizes about the coming of a Messiah (the Twelfth Imam) to lead them to victory over all infidels, talk of logic, rationality and pragmatism seems acutely out of touch with reality.

Obama's assumption that there is something solid about the Iranian regime that makes it suitable as a recipient for such largesse and the chance to enrich uranium until kingdom come seems to be based on false consciousness. The regime has been in place for almost forty years, quite a respectable time for a dictatorship. In part, that has been because it has mastered the art of suppression, giving its people a degree of freedom that is missing in several other Islamic countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Sudan, or Afghanistan. These partial freedoms, especially for young people, lull the population into risk-averseness, possibly helped along by the memory in 2009 of pleas for more freedom, which the United States ignored and the mullahs savaged.

Obama, in his ongoing attempt to portray Islam as benign -- and a dictatorial regime as a sold basis for peace and understanding in the Middle East -- ignores the religious element of the theocracy, as well as the sadistic repression, and in doing so misses a lot.

First of all, Shi'ite Islam is different from its Sunni big brother. It is deeply imbued with features largely absent from Sunni Islam. The most important Shi'i denomination is that of the Twelvers (Ithna' 'Ashariyya), who, from the beginning of Islam, have believed themselves to be not only the true version of the faith, but the group destined by God to rule in its name. Beginning with 'Ali, the son-in-law of the Prophet and the fourth Caliph of the Sunnis, the Shi'a began as his supporters. (Please see the Appendix that follows this article: it contains material that even Barack Obama and his advisors need to know; without it, they simply will not "get" what the ayatollahs are about. It comes to an important conclusion that has considerable bearing on today's events -- and not the one you may expect.)

Beneath the smiles and banter lie the unsmiling masks and the taqiyya-flavoured lies. Beneath the wheeling and dealing and the refusals to compromise lies a sense of destiny for the regime, a belief that it stands on the brink of the realization of the centuries-old Shi'ite dream: that God will finally set his people on the pinnacle of the world and usher in the never-ending reign of the Imam Mahdi, with all injustice gone, the martyrs in paradise, the ayatollahs and mujtahids and maraji' in glory, and all the infidels in hell.

It is precisely because Barack Obama and his aides have never got down and dirty to take in hard information that they have remained utterly out of touch with the real springs and cogs of Iranian Shi'ite thinking.

Obama has, when all is said and done, let himself be deluded by the charm offensive of Hassan Rouhani and his henchman Javad Zarif. Obama may not believe in the mystical land of Hurqalya or the white steed on which the Twelfth Imam will ride to the world's last battle any more than you or I do. But the clerical elite of Iran, and those who follow them blindly -- men and women brought up from birth on these tales, and who travel in the thousands every day to send a message to the Imam at the Jamkaran Mosque near Qom -- believe these things with absolute devotion, and that is why this story matters, because it has political consequences.

Shi'i Muslim law enshrines jihad, holy war, as fully as does Sunni law. For Sunnis, jihad has always been possible under the authority of a Caliph, whether fought under his orders or led by kings and governors under his broad aegis.

The Shi'a, however, do not recognize the Caliphate and have often been the victims of Sunni jihads. They may feel impelled to fight a holy war, but under what authority could they do so?

The power of the clergy had waned under the anti-clerical reign of Iran's Pahlavi dynasty (1925-1979), only to burst out more strongly than ever in the Islamic Revolution, which placed all authority in a new system of government: rule by a religious jurist, a faqih.[2] Overnight, a jihad state was brought into existence; a jihad state with vast oil reserves, modern military equipment, and, at first, the support of almost the entire Iranian population. The clerical hierarchy under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did not just intend to prepare the way for the coming of the Mahdi. They were now his earthly deputies, in whose hands lay life and death for millions.

The new Shi'ism allowed the clergy to take on powers they had never imagined. More and more economic and legal power came to be concentrated in the hands of a narrow body of scholars, and sometimes a single man could be the source of religious and legal authority for the entire Shi'i world -- in Iran, Afghanistan, eastern Arabia, Bahrain, and so on. Thus were the foundations laid for the revolutionary rank of Supreme Leader, taken by the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamene'i.

Look for a moment at the preamble to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[3] You will see quickly that this does not read like any other constitution you have seen. The preamble sets the tone. Here, in an account of the circumstances leading to the revolution we read of the clergy as the ruhaniyyat-e mobarez, "the militant or fighting clergy." These are not Anglican vicars at their prayers or rabbis studying Talmud. A mobarez is a warrior, a champion, a fighter. Not far down the preamble, one encounters a description of their struggle as "The Great Holy War," jihad-e bozorg. We are not in Obama's world of logical and pragmatic striving for political and diplomatic coherence. This is made even clearer in one of the constitution's earlier articles, "The Religious Army." Here, we read that the Iranian Army and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps "have responsibility... for a religious mission, which is Holy War (Jihad) in the path of God, and the struggle to extend the supremacy of God's law in the world."

How do you reach a compromise and a pragmatic deal with a regime that thinks in this way? Are the U.S. administration and the P5+1 blind to something the Iranians have never even bothered to conceal? Do they really take everything in the talks at face value? Perhaps they think references to jihad and fighting clergy are nothing more than pious talk "for domestic consumption," as they tried to explain -- as real and everyday as the myths and legends of other faiths. If they do, then they have far less excuse for their blindness, for the Iranian regime is already at war and is already fighting its jihad.

In Iraq, for example, a country with a majority Twelver Shi'i population, Iranian-backed militias have been at war for many years, first against the Americans, then the Sunnis, and now the hordes of Islamic State. In June 2014, Grand Ayatollah al-Sayyid 'Ali al-Husayni al-Sistani issued a fatwa calling on Iraqis to fight against Islamic State, justifying their fight as jihad wajib kafa'i: a Jihad that is compulsory for those who choose it, but not for the entire population. The ruling calls for a struggle against ISIS's irhab – their "terrorism." Jihad is a religious and legal duty, and even though ISIS may call its fighting jihad, it is here condemned as terror.

Hezbollah, created and backed by Iran, is by far the largest terrorist group in the region. Hezbollah is considered a state within a state, with forces and infrastructure inside Lebanon and Syria. It has used the name "Islamic Jihad Organization" to cover its attacks on Israeli forces in Lebanon. In its 1988 Open Letter (Risala maftuha), it describes its followers as "Combatants of the Holy War" and goes on -- in terms similar to those in the Hamas Covenant -- "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated."

Hezbollah and its creator, the Iranian Islamic regime, have a curious link to the Palestinian terror movement, Hamas, despite Hamas being exclusively Sunni. By financing, arming, and defending Hamas, Iran is fighting a strange proxy jihad that serves its own purposes of defying the West, achieving regional hegemony, and winning praise from all Muslims in the world for its own war against Israel. It also furthers the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is the Palestinian branch) in the same struggle.

I have dragged you through the briars and mud because it is important here to see another culture through its own eyes. If we insist in pretending that Shi'i Muslims think like Sunni Muslims or, worse still, like Jews or Christians -- if we brush all that history and all those doctrines under the carpet of "any deal is better than no deal " -- we will go on making the same mistakes. We will believe that a purely political and diplomatic enterprise to bring Iran in from the cold and create a new trading alliance will transform an evil regime into a land of sweetness and light.

Members of the U.S. Congress must wake up and examine, in however cursory a fashion, these views that motivate the Iranian leadership, and must stop pretending that they are as logical and pragmatic as would be convenient for the wishes of the West.

Not that Obama and Kerry have ever sounded logical or pragmatic in how they have approached this debate and this deal-making process. In an act of supreme folly, the White House has dismissed Ayatollah Khamene'i's recent call for "Death to America;" they pretend it is just empty rhetoric for the Iranian people.

We are walking with a blindfold toward sure disaster. Forget the dreams of a Messiah if you will, but do not for one moment let yourself be lulled into thinking that only ISIS is serious about waging a jihad.

Despite their oft-expressed delusion that "Islam is a religion of peace," President Obama, Secretary John Kerry and other leaders are, like it or not, already engaged in a war against jihad. They have already fought it in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere. However much Obama wants to stand off from involvement in the jihad struggles of the Middle East, he cannot: Western states are fighting jihad, sometimes abroad, increasingly at home.

A Third World War is already taking place, a war the Islamists and Islamic states understand, but which many in the West still refuse to grasp. They are not even willing to respect the true motivations of the enemies against whom they fight. The Iran deal strengthens the hands of a regime that is the world's terrorist state, a state that furthers jihad in many places because its clerical hierarchy considers itself uniquely empowered to order and promote holy war.

Let us for the moment ignore the nuclear aspect of this deal and look instead on what it offers the world's leading jihad state. The removal of sanctions coupled with the business deals Europeans and others are rushing to secure, the delivery of perhaps $150 billion to Tehran, and the turning of many blind eyes to both Iran's internal repression and its jihad wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon leave the ayatollahs poised to dominate much of the Middle East.

And that is not all. Obama's belief in the stability of the Iranian regime seems to rest on its endurance since 1979. His trust in Khamene'i's presumed fatwa of 2013, forbidding nuclear weapons rests on the assumption that it even exists. It does not. No one has ever seen it. Even if the fatwa did exist, fatwas are not permanent. They are always regarded as temporary rulings with Twelver Shi'ism. This is a crucial technical point that the White House seems incapable of -- or ill-disposed to -- grasping.

Further, Obama's faith in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani as a reformer and moderate flies in the face of Rouhani's devotion to the hardline clerical leadership of which he is a part. Here are a few facts:

'Ali Khamene'i is 76 years old, but his health is poor and he may not live much longer. Already, factions within the hierarchy will be jostling for the Supreme Leadership.

In the Usuli Twelver version of Shi'ism, once a Mujtahid dies, his fatwas are no longer valid. A new Mujtahid or, in this case, a new Supreme Leader, has to issue fatwas of his own. A new fatwa may confirm an old one or radically differ from it.

A new Supreme Leader is an unpredictable personality.

The Iranian nuclear program is already up and running.

The breakout time for weapons grade materials may be as short as three months.

Iran already has and is acquiring ballistic missiles with an intercontinental range.

Jihad is hard-wired into the regime's philosophy.

Iran is already conducting a series of jihad wars abroad.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed a hope to return to the presidency in 2017. Ahmadinejad and his clique are bent on apocalyptic outcomes and actions to bring the Hidden Imam back to this world.

We only have to get this wrong once. Chants of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" are not narcotic iterations of slogans but sincerely felt expressions of intent.

Khamene'i last month praised the Iranian people for calling for the deaths of the USA and Israel, and said that he hoped God would answer their prayers because in at most ten years, the Iranian mullahs and their IRGC will possess the power to exterminate Israel, if they and their God so wish.

Why, then, is this deal going ahead at all?

Why are sanctions against the world's leading exporter of jihadi terrorism being lifted, not strengthened?

Why is one of the world's most tyrannical regimes being rewarded for its intransigence, and especially for repeatedly violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty?

Why has Israel's Prime Minister been vilified and sidelined simply for drawing attention to the weaknesses of a deal that could lead to the death of all of his people?

Why have the P5+1 never taken seriously the Shi'ite rule that it is permitted to lie to infidels and conceal one's own true intentions?

Why are secrets being kept -- such as the contents of the two side-deals?

Why is the U.S. Congress being asked to vote without the benefit of full disclosure?

Why is the IAEA banned from spontaneously inspecting only declared Iranian nuclear sites, and why are military sites completely off-limits?

The questions are so many and so critical that we remain in the dark about where this will lead mankind. No one who has ever done a financial or political deal would ever sign on the dotted line until they had answers to all their questions. Far more hangs on this deal than perhaps any deal in history. Yet those who want to make it enforceable under international law are uninformed about the most basic contents of the deal, as well as the beliefs and historical roots of their enemy.

Such folly is almost without precedence, except possibly in the process of appeasement that endeavoured to placate the Third Reich and treat Adolf Hitler as the best friend of democracy.

The Iranian regime not only despises democracy, it considers all Western law -- including international law -- invalid. This view has several deep roots. For both Sunni and Shi'i Muslims, only rule under God is valid, under a Caliph or a clerical theocracy under a Supreme Ruler. Human beings have no right to interfere. Democracy leads to the making of human laws that may contradict shari'a law, and such effrontery is considered arrogant and presumptuous. The democratic elements in Iran are tightly controlled, and supremacy rests in all areas beneath clerical authority. The same principle applies to international law, UN resolutions, treaties and so forth.

Iran has openly genocidal intent, as well as a devotion to holy war that goes to the very deepest level.

Before we leave the subject of jihad, there is one other factor that everyone has overlooked. It is the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the most important agreement in early Islamic history. In the year 628, Muhammad, now ruling in Medina, signed the ten-year Treaty of Hudaybiyyah with his long-time enemies, the tribal confederacy of Quraysh, who ruled Mecca. Twenty-two months later, under the pretext that a clan from a tribe allied with the Quraysh had squabbled with a tribe allied to the Muslims, Muhammad broke the treaty and attacked Mecca, conquering it.

What is important about this is that Muhammad had made the treaty while he was still relatively weak. But in the months after signing it, his alliances and growing conversions meant that he now possessed superior military strength -- and that was when he pounced.

In 1994, the treaty became crucial to the issue of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.[4] In September 1993, Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat signed the Oslo Accords along with Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, and the following year the two leaders were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

However, even as he awaited that prize, Arafat spoke at a mosque in Johannesburg alluded to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and referred to "a jihad to liberate Jerusalem": "I see this agreement," he said, "as being no more than the agreement signed between our Prophet Muhammad and the Quraysh in Mecca."

Non-Muslims may well have misunderstood this as a reference to some early Muslim peace-making. But Arafat made his meaning clear: "We now accept the peace agreement, but [only in order] to continue on the road to Jerusalem."[5]

The nuclear deal that President Obama and his supporters have imposed will strengthen Iran considerably, removing sanctions and delivering perhaps $150 billion to the country. It is as certain as day follows night, that the Iranian regime will find a pretext to break the deal. Already, on September 3, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene'i made it clear that he would back out of the deal if sanctions were not completely removed at once.

Whatever happens in the days ahead, the U.S. Congress, backed by a majority of the American public, needs to strike this madcap deal down before it wreaks a storm of tribulations on everyone.

Denis MacEoin has a PhD (Cambridge 1979) in Persian Studies and has written widely on Iran and its religious beliefs.

Appendix

'Ali became the first in a line of twelve imams, all deemed the true leaders of Islam, but all denied their right to rule and all but one assassinated (or so it is claimed) by the Sunni Caliphs. From this comes the Shi'i sense of suffering, injustice, oppression by despots, neglect and rights -- all of which played an important part in the 1979 revolution and continue to play out across society.

The Shi'a are the underdogs who are willing to sacrifice all to establish the rights of their imams and their successors. That was what the 1979 evolution was all about, and it is what present the regime still insists on as the justification for its opposition to Western intrusion, democracy, women's rights and all the rest, which are deemed by Iran's leadership as part of a plot to undermine and control the expansion of the Shi'i faith on the global stage.

The twelfth imam, according to Shi'ite legend, was a young boy, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the son of the murdered eleventh imam. Born in 869 in the Iraqi city of Samarra during the reign of the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate, his father, Hasan al-'Askari, died when Muhammad was born.

It is said that young Muhammad, in order to avoid his enemies, went into something called Occultation (ghayba). Even if this originally was physical, he was never seen alive again and is supposed to have entered the celestial realm of Hurqalya, from which he will one day return as the promised Saviour, the Qa'im bi'l-Sayf, the One Who will Arise with the Sword to do battle with injustice and infidelity.

This belief is what waters modern Shi'i apocalypticism, something promoted intensely by former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This expectation has considerable significance for Iran's drive to nuclear power. But that is not why I raise the issue here. There is another, more mundane, aspect to the Imam's disappearance and continued Occultation, and it may be even more relevant to the matters at hand.

The answer to what authority they could fight under was that only the Imam in each generation could order or lead jihad. But when the twelfth Imam vanished from human sight, was jihad to remain in abeyance until his return or could it be fought under another authority? The answer was not at first simple, but one thing started to happen: the Shi'a began to consider their religious scholars to be the intermediaries with the Imam, and this laid the basis for the possibility that they might have the right to order jihad. For some time, this was just conjectural, for the Shi'a had little worldly power.

In 1501, a new dynasty, the Safavids, came to power in Iran, forced most of the population to convert to Shi'ism, and created a line of kings under whom the clerical class became more and more powerful. The Shah could still lead jihad, but the clergy were needed to give permission. The Safavid dynasty lasted till 1722, and an interregnum was followed by the emergence of a new line of Shahs, the Qajars, who ruled from 1796 to 1925.

Under the Qajars, the Shi'i clerical hierarchy underwent deep and lasting changes, producing today's version of Twelver Islam, the Usulis.

The newly powerful 'ulama of the 19th century took on the mantle of deputies for the Hidden Imam and ordered jihads in 1809 and 1826 (against Russia), 1836, 1843, and 1856-7 (against the British). In 1914, when the British occupied Iraq at the start of World War I, the Shi'i clergy in the shrine centres there declared jihad to reinforce the call for Holy War by the Ottoman empire.

Comment on this item

Name:

Email Address:

Comments:

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Gatestone Institute greatly appreciates your comments. The editors reserve the right, however, not to publish comments containing: incitement to violence, profanity, or any broad-brush slurring of any race, ethnic group or religion. Gatestone also reserves the right to edit comments for length, clarity and grammar. All thoughtful suggestions and analyses will be gratefully considered. Commenters' email addresses will not be displayed publicly. Gatestone regrets that, because of the increasingly great volume of traffic, we are not able to publish them all.

23 Reader Comments

S William H. Stone • Sep 8, 2015 at 06:35

Please send this aritcle to Obama and Kerry. They need to be educated.Thank you,

WHS

Reply->

Des • Sep 8, 2015 at 00:04

Why do so many people ignore these facts, even worse, not take the trouble to read about them? The Bible says: "I will send them strong delusions." This is happening right now. Hundreds or thousands of jihadis are pouring into Europe amongst a few genuine refugees. If one says anything contrary to the likes of Merkel, one is bad. And there is another delusion: In those days good will be called evil and evil good. What a world we live in! Not much longer though. Mankind is on a course of self-destruction -- willingly and stupidly. Maranatha.

Reply->

Elisheva • Sep 7, 2015 at 19:57

Obama and Kerry are fanatics and zealots who know what they are doing. Their hatred for the West and especially Israel is what drives them to be forces for chaos and destruction. They are well aware that their goals are not for peaceful purposes. They are not ignorant. Obama knows that Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood are evil. Yet they are welcome in the White House. He has had many teachers who have encouraged his nihilism. Valarie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to Obama, lived in Iran. They try to oppose any rational thinking. The questions I have is why so many Congressmen and Senators, perhaps out of loyalty to Obama are voting for this deal. What power does he have to coerce such loyalty. Their public show of contempt for Netanyahu and Israel were so apparent that Israelis are united against this deal: right and left.

Reply->

Henry Saltsman • Sep 7, 2015 at 19:01

Once again, another "Well-Done" for the staff of Gatestone Institute. My addition brings this (one of three) monotheistic religions of the world, (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), more into today's perspective.

Muslims believe that God exists, that He created the world, and that all mankind will one day give account before Him at the judgment. On these basics (though not in detail) all agree. The 112th Sura (chapter) of the Qur'an, though only four verses, summarize the Islamic understanding of the unity and nature of God: "In the name of God, the Most Gracious, Most Merciful. Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him."

Though God has ninety-nine names in the Qur'an (see 59:22-24, for example), every Muslim affirms monotheism. It is encased in their fundamental creed: "There Is No God But God And Muhammad Is His Prophet."

Muslims believe that theirs is the original faith, the faith of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, John the Baptist, and Jesus. They also believe that Christians have distorted and denied the original faith, especially in relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Qur'an denounces the Trinity as a matter of factly: "O people of the book! Commit no excesses in your religion; nor say of God aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Apostle of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in God and His apostles. Say not "Trinity," desist: for God is one God; Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belongs all things in heaven and earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs (4:171). (Also reference Sura 5:75-76; 5:119).

Muslims also deny that Jesus was crucified. Sura 4 in the Qur'an (vv.157-158) says the following: "They that said (in boast), "We killed Jesus Christ the son of Mary, the apostle of God; but they killed Him nor crucified Him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for a surety they killed Him not: nay, God raised Him up unto Himself, and God is exalted in power, Wise ...."

So there are the fundamental concepts which define the whole of Islam and their holy book the Qur'an. The beginning of Christianity is not founded on exclusionary beliefs. The Christian faith is grounded in God's loving response to nasty sinners like me. There is nothing narrow or elitist about a faith that proclaims and implores you "come as you are!" When a man sees himself to be altogether lost and ruined, covered completely with the defilement of sin, and no part free from its pollution; when he disclaims all righteousness, and pleads guilty before our Lord, then he is completely clean through the washing of the blood of Jesus, and the awesome grace of God, because when sin is seen and felt it has received its death blow, and the Lord sees with mercy upon the afflicted soul.

For a true picture of Christianity, and its beginnings, I strongly recommend the Holy Bible, for the Bible is replete with people who changed the world around them, prostitutes, murderers, cheaters, liars and adulterers....why would God want us, like us, seek us and pursue us is more than bewildering. But, it is the greatest news we could ever receive!!

Reply->

SaEFan • Sep 7, 2015 at 18:28

Iran, for all its bluster and jihadism, is still a small country with only one product, oil. Not even refined oil and other derivatives, but plain crude. With the demand for oil diminishing, even the $150B will not last. In the long run, unless Iran industrializes, its future is second rate. Were it to industrialize, it would have two alternatives, do so with state owned enterprises, or do so with private enterprise. The former we know does not work in the longer run, and latter can take two forms: fascist slave state, or capitalistic. The fascist state breeds revolutions and they know it. For capitalism to succeed the totalitarian restrictions need to lessen, or the process fails.

Hence in the long run, give it several generations, Iran will quiet down, even if no internal revolution occurs to upset their cart.

Considering the number of wars they will be involved in locally, the chance of their surviving several generations is nil. Nukes or no nukes.Of course they could resort to nuclear gotterdammerung.

In the MidEast nothing is permanent. I fully expect major developments within the current generation, that will moot all current considerations.And if Apophis hits in the 2030's, all bets are off anyway.

Reply->

jacob t chachkes, m.d. • Sep 7, 2015 at 16:59

Obama, Kerry, et al are following a 'belief' system by believing that Iran is NOT intent on making the planet Shi'a. They are naive but have power that we validate by not protesting despite apparent overwhelming disapproval,as the Iranians validate Khamani.

How do we get the Western governments to recognize that Iran and its minions are MORE dangerous than the Nazis?

More dangerous at least because they will soon have nuclear weapons and ICBMs with which to hit EVERY Western action.

I would like an answer on which we can ALL act!!!!!!

Reply->

Gerd Kaluski • Sep 7, 2015 at 16:45

Nuclear Jihad is an excellent analysis of the true intentions of the supreme leader of Iran and his followers. The title I give to my my comments refers to the wishful thinking of the Western European countries prior to WW2 regarding Hitler's Nazi Regime in Germany; wishful thinking that is is being repeated today regarding the nuclear agreement with Iran. World War Two resulted in the deaths of over 20 million people. With the world's population having tripled since that time, how many deaths will occur if as a result of wearing rose colored glasses of wishful thinking and we allow Iran's leadership the means to conduct all out Jihad to destroy democracy and annihilate Israel.

Reply->

Michael O'Connor • Sep 7, 2015 at 14:05

This deal is ROTTEN to the core, so is Barack Obama. I have been saying that Obama is sympathetic towards all Muslims because of his own upbringing. It's being shouted out loud from the White House via Obama but nobody is saying so. The above of which I am replying to is the first time I have read anything that's almost saying president Obama is transfixed on the Islamic position of Iran. For me Iran is the all and end all to the Middle East problem. Take care of Iran then we sort out ISIS its that's simple but nobody has the guts to do it.

Reply->

Adrianne Taubman • Sep 7, 2015 at 13:54

Dear Gatestone Institute,I am hoping and praying that this piece will be spread far and wide, especially to each and every Congressperson in the USA. It truly explains the situation to any even simple-minded person.

We must keep trying to undo this horrendous farce of a so-called deal and keep even stronger sanctions on the Iranians.

Thank you and all your great writers for keeping up the information we all need to stay strong and committed to protect Israel and the USA.

Sincerely,Adrianne (Yael) Taubman

Reply->

Vivienne Leijonhufvud • Sep 7, 2015 at 13:46

As always a brilliant analysis of the events likely to take place and have already taken place in IRAN. I have to wholly agree, there are too few politicians around today and in recent the past who really have little knowledge of not only the Shi'ia mind but that of the Sunni. I personally find it incredible how lacking in real history around ISLAM is? What on earth have kids in school been taught since the '70's? History is a major subject on any curriculum. How do we learn if not from the past? I feel it is too late for anything to be resolved from the mess the world is now in.

Reply->

David Ashon • Sep 7, 2015 at 13:09

An important analysis including the quotation from the Constitution.

I do not think however that this would require a nuclear attack on the Holy City of Jerusalem. Comments please.

Reply->

Bill Chastain • Sep 7, 2015 at 12:57

I have read almost every article Gatestone has published since I signed-on to your email distribution. One thing is abundantly clear. World affairs are not getting any better and they're very likely to get a whole lot worse. My advice is to stop talking about all of the bad decisionmaking taking place and start doing something about it. If you are too afraid to take matters into your own hands, I'm sorry. Sometimes, you have to be willing to go toward the danger.

If anyone doubts what our world can/will look like in just a short while, visit my home town of Detroit. To say the least, it is a sobering sight to see and that's if we're not all completely dead.

Reply->

Harvey • Sep 7, 2015 at 12:55

After reading this well researched article by Denis, one wonders if in a few years time there will be any world left to live in that we know today. If Israel has a nuclear capability and it has not bothered Saudi Arabia, it is a telling sign that the Saudis are now stregthening their military prowess only after this crazy Iran deal. Arab not trusting Arab but the West trusting Iran, insanity ruling the day again.

Reply->

Jude Meritus • Sep 7, 2015 at 12:19

Or perhaps you are giving him the benefit of the doubt? Having been brought up a Muslim and with a brother who is a high official of the Muslim Brotherhood, also the likelihood that he was chosen by the New World Order to forward their plan for a world-wide One Religion and his hate of Israel and lack of support for Christians under persecution, he is very intelligent and devious and knows exactly what he is doing. His policy of world-wide abortion and genderism (wider than gay rights) and recklessness with the doubling of the national debt during his term show he is an implacable enemy of the USA and the free world. His efforts of course, are already undermining that freedom and set on silencing any dissent by whatever underhand means he chooses. We are surely coming closer to the Maranatha moment in history. For anyone who doubts it just read the books of Daniel and Revelation as a starter.

Many Christians see him as a forerunner of the Anti-Christ, and even of the Mahdi, who will promise peace and safety for all peoples but wage war on the true people of God. The turmoil in the Middle East and Europe with millions of Muslims flooding in, many of whom will be true followers of Mohammed of whatever stripe could tip the balance of Europe sooner rather than later, which Gatestone anyway is foreshadowing in exposing the real agenda of worldwide Islam.

The end-time prophecies of the Bible are all coming to pass at an accelerating pace. Can any discerning mind believe that coincidence could have foretold what we are witnessing today as the Bible's amazingly accurate predictions fall like ninepins in front of us?

Reply->

robert davis • Sep 7, 2015 at 11:20

There is no doubt, Iran's intent is to become the ruler of the Middle East at any cost and that it has no intention to respect any kind of deal. Iran's rulers said it many times themselves. Barack Obama cannot ignore it and is playing his usual game made of LIES originated by tequilla which is considered by Moslems as "holy lies". All of his life Obama lied to everybody to get what he wanted. Why should he suddenly believe sincerely an absurdity such as Iran's pacific intents? Obama is fooling everyone and wants simply bring America and Israel to their knees. He is a mere FOOL but those who support his follies are even worse than him. Senators who support him will be personally held responsible for next word war or its equivalent massive destruction terrorism.

Reply->

Peter Terry • Sep 7, 2015 at 10:47

Brilliant article...which should be sent to all members of the P5+1 governments. While these leaders certainly have access to expert advice, many of the experts in the field of Islamic and Middle East studies are so blinded by their philosophical disposition in favor of multiculturalism that they do not even discuss the prospect of Muslim jihadism being a threat to Western Civilization. They have conveniently branded those few experts who dare to raise this prospect as Islamophobes and Right Wingers.

Additionally, while there is copious reference in the annals of Islamic tradition and law to jihad, there is no mention of nuclear jihad, which means that there are no legal guidelines restraining Muslim governments. They and their religious guides can and will invent whatever justifications they wish to justify use of the nuclear option. Lastly, as long as Russia and, to a lesser extent, China and North Korean back up Iran and other Islamist governments and terrorist groups, the West will hesitate to hold aggressors responsible. Afghanistan, Pakistan, 'Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Iran are all cases in point.

What is needed is Western leadership, not fear-based conciliation. If the Right is the only option for opposing the current policies, it is inevitable that the Right will be voted into office and will take hard line steps to stem the tide. In which case, the Left and Middle will have nobody to blame, but themselves.

Reply->

Gregory Bigelow • Sep 7, 2015 at 10:22

They shall cry: peace, peace and then sudden destruction. Where have we heard "this word" of prophecy and warning?

Excellent article. Well informed. Thank you for the reality check. Hopefully this administration will receive this as well. For all our sakes.

Reply->

arthur • Sep 7, 2015 at 10:11

Barack Obama has been clear that he views the US as the last neo-colonialist power and as such must be punished for its acts and those of its European roots. The elevating and empowering of a dangerous and hostile Iran is part of the punishment. So too is the "Arab spring" which has totally destabilized the Mid East up to and including the former Soviet eastern "stans" Afghanistan and Pakistan. While US, British, French and most particularly Russian arms exporters will make a fortune it is clear that there will be an open war involving Iran within the next few years. If Iran was going to be a rational state, why has the US offered vast quantities of arms to the Gulf states? The "refugees' will inundate Europe. There is no "vetting" and clearly sleeper cells will be introduced.

Reply->

bas • Sep 7, 2015 at 10:07

The deal between P5+1 and Iran seems to defy reasonable logic unless there are some hidden agenda. The deal which lifts economic sanctions and the delivery of 150B USD with a country that sponsors terrorism has brought humanity's fate at stake. There seems to be a hidden agenda behind the deal, a very sinister plan by a very powerful elite group hiding behind some individuals and riding on religious fanaticism.

Reply->

Lia • Sep 7, 2015 at 08:54

The question now is: was Mr Obama, for all his rhetoric, right? Or was Mr Netanyahu right when he so plainly spoke before Congress?

Reply->

Fred • Sep 7, 2015 at 08:46

With incredulous naivete Barack Obama really believes selling the world to Iran a miracle will occur, peace will be trumpeted. Obama will become a saint. The same road was take by Chamberlain to Hitler & the rest is history. 60,000,000 people dead. Chamberlain waving paper "Peace in our Time" as Obama emulating with "No Nukes on my Watch." Iran was not capable to show Obama some shred of goodwill to release the American hostages.After Obama lightens the blaze he leaves his office for others to face the conflagration.

Reply->

Albert • Sep 7, 2015 at 06:42

Barack Hussein is not only aware of Iranian religious fervor to beat up the world and destroy the USA and Israel. His claiming that the Iranian regime is logical thinking is a lie. It is a lie because Barack Hussein is the Islamic in Chief in Washington. His spiritual training in Liberation Theology that knows no religious borders applies to Islamic lands supposedly the victims of America. "God damn America!" live on TV of his spiritual mentor was a sound bite hard to ignore. Then volunteering, Volunteering! Volunteering to help Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam when multitudes cheered every rant against America, Israel, the Jews. Why would anyone think that an intelligent individual while being the Chief Islamist in Washington believe that Iran is in offensive and logical while ignoring their daily ritual of screaming "Death to America! Death to Israel! The Chief Islamist in Washington has given his ultimate Fatwa, The agreements with Iran.

Reply->

Rowan Shann Albert • Sep 8, 2015 at 02:35

This article is a brilliant presentation of the present state-of-play. Looked at logically, the story doesn't make sense. Why would America act like this? If you put in an extra factor -- that Obama is a devoted Moslem who has seized control of America in one of the most brilliant coups in history -- then everything falls into place. I have felt for a long time that Obama, from his words and actions, must be a Moslem, and this article confirms it as far as I am concerned. Nothing else makes sense.